From: Konstantin R. <gr...@re...> - 2000-08-23 20:28:28
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Lewis Bergman wrote: > Very impressive! Thanks, I'm fond of it, too.. ;) > hmmm java though. When you think about it, probably the most efficient as far > as trafiic I guess. That's the reason I've done it via JavaScript. I'm accessing the web via a very poor uplink here and every extra trip to the server and back is a pain.. ;) However, I understand that on the Intranet this is not a problem, therefore I will most likely implement a non-JavaScript version as well some time in the future. There other problems with the pure-HTML version of it, though -- I'm not sure I can take the compose form and submit it to the spellchecker, since the "action" property of that form is hard-coded to be the innards of SquiirrelMail and I can't redirect it to the spellchecker, if the spellchecker is a plugin. I would think that the best solution would be to have a hard-coded pure-HTML version of spellchecker in the SquirrelMail, and then have the plugin optionally for users who would rather make one trip to the server instead of several. > This would give people who selected the java address book the java spellchecker > and wouldn't print out the button for those without it. A little more multiuser > friendly. Maybe. As I mentioned, this is a functionality release and it'll be more feature-rich in the future. > I don't know if the above could would work. Also, the selection box in options would need to > reflect that the java selection isn't just for the addressbook. What do you > think? I'll sleep on that and see what dreams may come, how about it? :) Sincerely, Konstantin Riabitsev gr...@re... |